Not bad :) Doru
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:11 AM, jannik.laval <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:17 PM, jannik.laval wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I tried the VM included in Moose (moosetechnology.org). >>> If I remember well, it is a cog vm. >>> >>> The maximal heap size is (precisely): 2138046463 bytes. >>> Why this number ? I don't know. But I will need more than 2Gb. >> >> HI jannik >> >> was the system usable? >> Because the problem with more memory is that you need specific GCes. > > It seems. > I built a DSM on a 1300 packages system. > > Jannik > >> >> Stef >> >> >> >>> >>> I will try the 64bits vm, and see. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Jannik >>> >>> On Aug 1, 2012, at 7:51 PM, David T. Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi John, >>>> >>>> There is no regression in the interpreter VM ... well actually there was >>>> about 6 months back, but I keep an eye on it and it's fixed again now :) >>>> >>>> The 32-bit interpreter VM will not fail on any 2GB or 4BG boundaries, >>>> and an interpreter VM compiled for the 64-bit object format can handle >>>> images greater than 7GB (probably much more, but my 8GB PC is too small >>>> to do anything larger). >>>> >>>> I'm not sure if all of the necessary fixes are in place for the StackVM >>>> and Cog. If not, I'm sure it will be addressed over time (it's just not >>>> something that I have ever checked). >>>> >>>> I believe that Jannik is interested in running very large images, at >>>> least on an experimental basis. For anything over a few GB, this requires >>>> an interpreter VM and a 64-bit image. As you know, this is sure to run >>>> into problems for the garbage collector as the number of objects >>>> increases, but it would certainly be interesting to see how far the >>>> current garbage collector can go in real world conditions before it >>>> turns to mollasses. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:57:02AM -0400, John McIntosh wrote: >>>>> A few years back the interpreted virtual machine was fixed to allow an >>>>> image to grow to the 4 GB limit. >>>>> It is unclear to me if someone regressed the software to impose a 2GB >>>>> limit >>>>> again, or if the 2GB number >>>>> mentioned is based on how things worked10 years ago? >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:01 AM, St?phane Ducasse >>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:46 PM, johnmci wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> David Lewis and I spent a far amount of time a few years back to make >>>>>> the 32 >>>>>>> vm 4gb clean. So are you running on stale knowledge here, or does the vm >>>>>>> crash when to goes over 2gb? >>>>>> >>>>>> sorry my english limit does not let me know understanding what you mean >>>>>> exactly. >>>>>> Jannik in the context of moose would like to see if we can have image >>>>>> larger than 500 mb (on mac it should be possible). >>>>>> >>>>>> Stef >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> --- >>> Jannik Laval >>> >>> >> >> > > --- > Jannik Laval > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
